The founders of modern social sciences – from Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, Emil Durkheim, Max Weber and Sigmund Freud – predicted that one powerful consequence of modernity would not only be the privatization of religion but also its marginalization and decline. Accordingly, the enthronement of reason would supplant the superstitions and irrational beliefs and dawn a secularized society. Contrary to the doomsday prophets of religion, in post-cold war and globalized era, we see the return of religion in public order. The theory of “Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel P. Huntington, “The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion, Violence and Reconciliation,” by R. Scotte Appleby who, with Martin E. Marty, co-edits the five-volume Fundamentalism Project, “Terror in the Mind of God, The Global Rise of Religious Violence, by Mark Juergensmeyer and “No Future without Forgiveness” by Archbishop Desmond Tutu speak of the potentiality of religion to generate peace and war.
The process of economic globalization contributes to China’s and India’s rise as emerging economic powers. The religious globalization diffuses the Eastern religions in the West and also marks a remarkable growth of Christianity and Islam in the world. A paradox of the era of globalization is the alliance between religion and violence or acts of religious terrorism and also religion and peace. Thus, the modern world is characterized not only by martyrs for peace and nonviolence but also for war and violence. Virtually, every major religious tradition – Christianity, Jewish, Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist – has served as a source for violent actors and also for nonviolent militants and peacemakers. The religions are capable of providing the ideological resources for violence and nonviolence. If Asia is the cradle of world’s major religions and if the rise of religious fundamentalism and violence is a social phenomenon, in Asia, then, naturally, Christians cannot turn a blind eye to this alarming factor. If Christian evangelizing mission aims at building a harmonious society, theologically and sociologically, as a religious minority in Asia, Christians ought to enter into a healthy intra-Christian and interreligious dialogue. Yet, the Christians also have added fuel to the fire. The aggressive mission by some Christians, tantamount to the colonial epoch, has caused tensions not only among Christians and other religions but also among different Christian denominations.
Robert Schreiter argues that anti-globalism manifests in theology in two forms: fundamentalism and revanchism. By fundamentalism he means, “an act of resistance to globalization.” The second form of anti-globalism is revanchism. It does not reject the modernity altogether. Yet, revanchism seeks to regain the territory that has been lost through reasserting the centralized authority in place of the decentralized. The second cultural logic is ethnification. It means the process of rediscovering a forgotten identity based on one’s cultural ties. Schreiter names the resistance to globalization by different cultures as cultural logic, and names a third one, primitivism. It can be defined as “an attempt to go back to an earlier, pre-modern period to find a frame of reference and meaning in order to engage the present.”
Religious fundamentalism and conversion controversy are very much present in modern Asia in this era of globalization. The image of Asia as multicultural and multireligious is being tarnished owing to religious conflicts and tensions. If globalization produces fundamentalism, let us see how it happens today.
FUNDAMENTALISM AS ANTI-GLOBALIZATION
The rapid progress of social communication and means of transportation have really made the world a ‘global village’ and a ‘global family.’ We cannot go back on globalization. Abandoning globalization is neither feasible nor desirable. Besides, globalization as a process has produced huge benefits. East Asia’s success was due to globalization. It also creates new opportunities for trade and increased access to markets and technology. Globalization also has brought better health facilities, democracy and greater social justice to the world. It also creates a platform for mutual cultural, educational, intellectual, scientific, technological, and skills exchanges. Thus, the suffering of one country (one member) concerns the whole human family and enhances solidarity. Besides, both human right violations and discriminations perpetrated by one government or by other groups (ethnic/religious) are no longer internal or national issues. Many international civil society organizations give voice to the voiceless and stand for the rights of the oppressed. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), UNO Charter of the Earth, and the International Criminal Court of UNO globalize the idea of democracy and of civil society. Overall, globalization has helped hundreds of millions of people attain higher standards of living.
Unfortunately, for millions of people, globalization has not worked. It has failed to deliver the goods. “Many have actually been made worse off, as they have seen their jobs destroyed and their lives become more insecure. They have felt increasingly powerless against forces beyond their control. They have felt their democracies undermined, their cultures eroded,” as remarked Joseph E. Stiglitz. It was once believed that the primary mission of globalization was to integrate the parts into a whole. But, in fact, the parts have lost their socio-cultural, economic, and political identity. Instead of integration, globalization has brought about disintegration. “The global village, once a symbol of integration, unification, and harmony, now denotes difference, differentiation, demarcation, discrimination, and dissonance,” wrote Samir Dasgupta. Marshall McLuhan’s dream of a “global village” has become a nightmare or a mirage.
Added Dasgupta: “In terms of disparity, we remain parts rather than wholes. In terms of a single humanity, we are divided. In terms of possessions, we are either rich or we are destitute. (…) But in the inner space of the earth, we see the tragic division of humanity into hostile groups. Terrorism, sectarianism, bigotry, fundamentalism, and its horrible descendent, fanaticism, have possessed this beautiful planet.”
Therefore, for many in the developing world, globalization has not brought the promised economic benefits. The growing divisions between the haves and the have-nots left increasing numbers, in the Third World, in dire poverty. If globalization has not succeeded in reducing poverty, neither has it succeeded in ensuring stability. Crises in Asia, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America have threatened the economies and the stability of all – developing, as well as the developed countries. The financial crisis of 2007 to the present and the Euro crisis of 2010 reveal the grave problem of the existing system. Rapid economic changes and instability contribute to the birth of fundamentalism.
ACCOUNTING FOR FUNDAMENTALISM
From the Latin fundamentum, foundation, the term ‘fundamentalism’ refers to an attitude which emerged at the beginning of the 1900s among Protestant circles, particularly in North America. Today, fundamentalism is more generally understood to refer to extreme conservatism. In assuming an attitude of inflexible superiority and making religion the only reference point in human life, fundamentalists oppose pluralism and totally reject anyone and anything outside their world vision. The followers of fundamentalism fight for the restoration of their religion, which they consider should also be imposed, at any price, as a political power. “Currently, fundamentalism is seen to define a range of movements, either religious or sociopolitical (but more often, both), in all religions of the world, which aims to impose specific traditions – whether religious, national, cultural, or ethnic – on societies thought to be in danger of straying from the “fundamentals” that hold them together,” underlined Santosh C. Saha and Thomas K. Carr.
According to the Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism, “fundamentalists advanced an absolutist claim to religious truth, and displayed an emphatic intolerance of other religiously-inspired actors of their era. Fervent, exclusive, religious clarity achieved via an erasure of doubt. […].” It is interesting to see the link between the birth of fundamentalism and the change of the social system. (…) Historically […] the fundamentalist movement was a popular means of revolt against modernism by the traditional Christians at serious odds with the dominant values of a rapidly developing modern, technological, capitalistic society, and often squeezed out of meaningful participation in it, as well.” Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, in Fundamentalisms Observed, argue that, even today, religious fundamentalisms arise as a reaction to modern cultures. According to above scholars, fundamentalists identify principally three threats from modern culture: “A preference for secular rationality; the adoption of religious tolerance with accompanying tendencies toward relativism; and individualism.” Nevertheless, they affirm that fundamentalists do not reject modernity en masse; rather they use technology, mass media of communications, and other instruments of modernity for their purposes.
Santosh C. Saha identifies the characteristics commonly associated with the religious fundamentalism as follows: A conscious effort to return to the core beliefs or values of a given religion or culture; texts taken to be authoritative are used to justify the return to past beliefs or values; an attitude of ambivalence is expressed towards modernity and secularism; there is a self-appointed elite that assumes the leadership role in promoting the fundamentalist agenda; the goal of this elite is the transformation of society including the capture of the state power; while some use violence to achieve their ends, others reject it.
According to the same author, the theology of Protestant Fundamentalism active in Asia today can be enumerated as follows: the idea that humans have the ability to convince people to become “saved” opens the floodgate of innovation to produce converts, and success is based on the number of people an evangelist could “get saved”; the individual has the ability to choose or reject God; the new eschatological system called “dispensational premillenialism”: the world is a lost cause; and that it is a Christian duty to save as many people as possible because God is about to “rapture” all Christians out of the world, and then a “great tribulation period” would begin on earth.
Today, Asia is rampant with different fundamentalisms related to Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. It is not an exaggeration to say that globalization is a contributory factor for the rebirth of fundamentalism. “In summary, it has been said that fundamentalism is a reactionary gesture in a world that is moving too fast toward conformity and unity; a world that demands tolerance for the sake of the ‘new world order,” add Santosh C. Saha and Thomas K.Carr. “Globalization has been accused of helping to spark new religious wars by favoring conditions for the birth of quasi-religious movements, and the rebirth of fundamentalism,” affirm Guido Bolaffi, Raffaele Bracalenti, Peter Braham and Sandro Gindro (Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity & Culture).
The proponents of globalization predicted that the “global village” would bring an end to parochialism and nationalism. On the contrary, the rise of fundamentalism and nationalism is a social phenomenon not only in developing countries but in Europe, as well. Samuel Huntington argues that the progress of globalization will be severely constrained by religio-political barriers. Thus, the clash of civilizations (religions/cultures/ethnic communities) has global roots.
THE CONVERSION DEBATE
Asia is today disfigured by the debate of the “unethical conversion” which is directly linked to globalization and fundamentalism. The mushrooming Christian groups, with an aggressive mission, seek to convert the people from other faiths. The negative globalization with its discontents rises against the erosion of traditional values and the loss of their livelihood. As we saw above, due to lack of political ideology, religions are called upon to play a public role. When a religion supports one ethnic or cultural group at the expense of the others, it loses its universalism and tends towards particularism. As a result, not only economic globalization but also spread of Christianity is seen as a threat and an invasion since it also opens colonial wounds. Global evangelism thus has contributed to interreligious and intra-Christian conflicts and tensions.
This tension reveals in the dialogue between Catholics, Pentecostals and Evangelicals. The Pentecostal and Catholic dialogue members see proselytism as an unethical activity and name some elements that would judge evangelism as proselytism, thus:
“All ways of promoting our own community of faith that are intellectually dishonest such as contrasting an ideal presentation of our own community with the weaknesses of another Christian community;
All intellectual laziness and culpable ignorance that neglect readily accessible knowledge of the other’s tradition;
Every willful misinterpretation of the beliefs and practices of other Christian communities;
Every form of force, coercion, compulsion, mockery or intimidation of a personal, psychological, physical, moral, social, economic, religious or political nature;
Every form of cajolery or manipulation including the exaggeration of biblical promises. Because these distortions do not respect the dignity of person and their freedom to make their own choices;
Every abuse of mass media in a way that is disrespectful of another faith and manipulative of the audience;
All unwarranted judgments or acts which can raise suspicion about the sincerity of others;
All competitive evangelization focused against other Christian bodies (cf. Rom 15:20).”
In Asia, Buddhists and Hindus see conversion to Christianity not as “conversion” but as “proselytism.” In other words, they argue that since Christian conversions carry with them material allurements, they are unethical or are forced conversions. Equalizing each conversion to Christianity as unethical is an exaggerated falsehood. It is true that some Christians resort to these uncouth means to win converts. Nevertheless, the majority of Christians carry out mission and evangelization, not purely aiming at conversion, but with a wider vision. On the other hand, the converts or proselytes debate is a perennial problem in the Church.
A CIVILIZATION OF LOVE
The words of Pope John Paul II shed much wisdom on the importance of interreligious dialogue today. “In our march toward the third millennium, I have recalled that dialogue among religions is a way to create a civilization of love, not to cause harmful misunderstanding, and to avoid syncretism” (TMA, 53). In this perspective, the Christians have a major role to play. It is tragic and scandalous to see that Christians claiming to profess one Gospel of Jesus are split into so many confessions and fighting among themselves. This is not only a counter-witness but also callous to Christian vocation of reconciliation. “It is all God’s work; He reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ (1 Cor 5:18-20).” Hence, unity among Christians is of paramount importance, prior to speaking of interreligious harmony. Therefore, all Churches need conversion, metanoia, a return to God. Asia is in pieces due to prolonged conflicts. Poverty is skyrocketing. Corrupt politicians suck the economic blood of the nations to better themselves. The poor man is lying on the road unattended, dying… unless a Good Samaritan comes along. The Crucified Jesus is all over the continent, still hanging on the cross. He is hungry, He is thirsty, He has become a stranger in His own continent, He is without clothes, He is sick, and He is in prison (cf. Mt 25: 31-46).
The Christians, instead of aggressive and provocative evangelism and a fanatic conversion drive, need to collaborate with Missio Dei in converting the whole humanity and the unjust structures, which belittle the dignity of the human person created in God’s own image and redeemed by Jesus Christ. Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil of Guwahati, India, shed much light on our discussion. He points out: “As long as dialogue-partners consider religions as competing ideologies, bundles of arguments, sets of competing propositions, packages of proofs, clusters of colliding interests, they will remain members of a debating club.” He argues that the above methods of proclamation will not impress the Asian seekers. Instead, the gracious words of Jesus will always win attention or address the core concerns of civilization.
Throughout his paper, Archbishop Menamparampil emphasizes that “the person of Christ is not an obstacle in Asia,” or “the teachings of Jesus always make Asians sit up in amazement; they treasure His words.” Rather, the Asians will not stomach the arguments in general, claims of superiority going across cultures and ‘convincing people of sin,’ aggressive evangelistic crusades and campaigns, claims of numbers. Besides, with regard to conversion, the Archbishop notes it has acquired a negative connotation in many places of Asia.
The missionary mandate the Church has received from the Risen Lord is to proclaim His Good News and to make disciples from among the nations (Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:15-16; Jn 20:21; Acts 1:8). St. Paul says: “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel” (1 Cor 9:6). “Everyone who calls on the Name of the Lord shall be saved, but how are they to call… without someone to proclaim Him?” (Rom 10:13-15). The recent papal exhortations and encyclicals emphasized the same urgency of proclamation (EN, 22; RM, 1-2.44; EA, 19-20). “The great question now facing the Church in Asia is how to share, with our Asian brothers and sisters, what we treasure as the gift containing all gifts, namely, the Good News of Jesus Christ” (EA, 19).
Thus, today, above all, Buddhists, Christians, Hindus and Muslims ought to undergo a conversion. This does not mean watering down the missionary zeal of each religious tradition or compromising their unique identities. Rather, the very missionary spirit motivates religious traditions to collaborate together to bring universal peace and harmony or healing to a fractured and suffering world. Since all religions belong to one salvific mission of the Trinitarian God with the Reign of God as its goal, our mission as Christians, is the globalization of the Reign of God together with other pilgrims. The real enemy is not true religions but evil structures which exploit and enslaves women and men of our age.
As the Buddhist Gunaseela Vitanage noted: “On the face of the rising tide of materialism and the consequent recession of spiritual values, the need has become urgent for all religions which claim to be repositories of spiritual values, to get together, find out the areas of agreements in these values in all religions and promote them jointly and separately. That is the one and only way to bring goodwill and peace on earth.” The same sentiment was expressed by Pope John Paul II: “So many problems are looming on the world’s horizon […]. It is, therefore, necessary and urgent to find again the desire and determination to walk together to build a more united world, overcoming special interests of peoples, of ethnic groups and of nations.” Pope Benedict XVI, too, shares a similar vision: “All people are members of one and the same family. An extreme exaltation of differences clashes with this fundamental truth. We need to regain an awareness that we share a common destiny which is ultimately transcendent, so as to maximize our historical and cultural differences, not in opposition to, but in cooperation with, people belonging to other cultures.”
